There are two major lines of criticism moved at Marx's approach to the transformation of values into prices. The circularity critique holds that constant and variable capital appear in Marx's numerical examples äs inputs at their individual valuesand äs Outputs at their social, transformed value (or price of production). This critique is rejected äs being foreign to Marx's methodology. Rather, the problem, when correctly formulated, is why and how the value ineorporated in the constant andvariable capital at the moment of their realization äs Outputs can differ from the value appropriated by them at the moment of their realization äs inputs (and vice versa). The infinite regression critique submits that Marx's approach implies following the formation of value step by step backward ad infinitum. This critique too is rejected on logical grounds and it is submitted that the problem, rather, is that of bringing up to the present the value which has been formed in the past. After the transformation problem has been thus reformulated, a solution is provided. Seen from this angle, which I argue is Marx's own, there is no inconsistency in Marx's numerical examples.